legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

Every incident where a lawyer got caught filing AI-fabricated citations. The Hall of Shame.

Embed this
858
Incidents tracked
265
Incidents in 2026
$2,417,608
In fines, where reported
214 of 858 report an amount

The curve

Incidents per month

Last 18 months of published incidents, by the date of the court's order.

Apr 2025 Sep 2026

Charting 450 of 858 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 151 Claude 9 CoCounsel 8 Copilot 8 Gemini 8 Lexis+ AI 6 AI-assisted legal software 4 Westlaw Precision 4 ChatGPT-4o 2 ChatOn 2 Eve 2 Google AI 2 LEAP 2 Perplexity AI 2 AI Overviews 1 Archie 1 Centient AI 1 ChatGPT-4 1 ClearBrief 1 CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 1 Descrybe.ai 1 First Drafts 1 GPT-3.5 1 Ghostwriter Legal 1 Google Scholar 1 Grammarly 1 Grok 1 Irys 1 Legal Genius 1 LegalAI 1 MX2.law 1 OpenCase 1 Strongsuit 1 vLex Fastcase 1

Counts only incidents where the filing court or the reporting named the tool.

Hall of Shame

All Fined 251 Caught, not sanctioned 199 Warned 125 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 56 Filing dismissed 37 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1
Fined $1K
A public defender filed an appellate brief with AI-generated citations, and the Appellate Court of Illinois ordered disgorgement of his fee plus $1,000 in sanctions and a referral.
Illinois public defender · Appellate Court of Illinois · IL
“It was a “perfect storm” of “temptation of AI out there at a time when [he] was busy and trying to meet deadlines.””
vlex.com ↗
The file →
  • Illinois public defender was sanctioned after filing an AI-written appellate brief.
  • Eight cited cases were involved, including five nonexistent ones and three misidentified ones.
  • The court ordered disgorgement of a $6,925.62 fee plus $1,000 in sanctions.
  • Appellate Court of Illinois, Illinois.
  • Page quotes the lawyer calling it a “perfect storm” and says the court referred him to the disciplinary commission.
Fined $10K ChatGPT
An attorney filed AI-enhanced appellate briefs with fabricated citations and quotations; the California Court of Appeal sanctioned him $10,000 and referred him to the State Bar.
[Los Angeles attorney; case caption not named on page] · attorney in Los Angeles · California Court of Appeal · CA

Cases that don't exist

  • Schimmel v. Levin
  • Peake v. Underwood
vlex.com ↗
The file →
  • Los Angeles attorney was sanctioned after filing AI-enhanced appellate briefs.
  • ChatGPT generated fabricated citations and quotations that were filed without reading.
  • The court imposed a $10,000 sanction and referred him to the State Bar.
  • California Court of Appeal, California.
  • Page says the sanction was the highest fine ever issued by a California state court for AI misuse.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Michael Long filed RTKL appeals and court papers with fabricated case citations, and the Borough challenged the filings in county court.
Michael Long · Michael Long · Northampton County Court of Common Pleas · PA

Cases that don't exist

  • Grove v. OOR
  • Pennsylvania State Education v. Commonwealth
  • IN RE S.S., 651 A.2d 174

+5 more

bathborough.org ↗
The file →
  • Michael Long was the requestor in the Bath Borough RTKL dispute.
  • He submitted legal filings and appeals containing fictitious or irrelevant citations.
  • The page reports no sanction order against him, only that the Borough challenged his filings.
  • The matter was in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania.
  • The article says Long used AI and even bragged about using ChatGPT.
Referred to the bar
Nevada attorneys were caught citing 14 fabricated cases and were referred to the state bar and ordered to write explanatory letters to law school deans.
In re Nevada attorneys · NV
jenkinslaw.org ↗
The file →
  • Attorneys in Nevada were referred to the state bar after using fabricated citations.
  • The page says they were also directed to write explanatory letters to their law school deans.
  • The sanction type is referral; no dollar amount is stated.
  • The court is not named on the page; Nevada is the only location given.
  • The page mentions 14 fabricated cases but names no AI tool.
Fined $10K
A Los Angeles plaintiff's attorney filed an opening brief riddled with AI-generated fake citations, and the California Second District Court of Appeal fined him $10,000.
Amir Mostafav matter · Amir Mostafav · California Second District Court of Appeal · CA
legalnewsline.com ↗
The file →
  • Amir Mostafav, a Los Angeles plaintiff's attorney, was sanctioned.
  • He submitted an opening brief riddled with AI-generated fake citations.
  • The court imposed a $10,000 fine.
  • The sanction came from the California Second District Court of Appeal in California.
  • The page gives no AI tool name and no quoted judge language.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A law school intern used ChatGPT for legal research, and an early-draft motion-to-dismiss opinion with fake quotes and misstated outcomes was withdrawn.
Julien Xavier Neals opinion · Julien Xavier Neals · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
“In doing so, the intern acted without authorization, without disclosure, and contrary to not only chambers policy but also the relevant law school policy.”
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Julien Xavier Neals, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
  • A law school intern used ChatGPT and the opinion misstated case outcomes and used fake quotes.
  • The opinion was withdrawn; no sanction is stated on the page.
  • District of New Jersey; federal court.
  • Neals said the intern acted without authorization, without disclosure, and contrary to chambers and law school policy.
Warned ChatGPT
Owoc filed a court motion with 11 AI-hallucinated citations and was sanctioned by the court.
Jack Owoc matter · Jack Owoc · California court · CA
futurism.com ↗
The file →
  • Jack Owoc was sanctioned in a California case.
  • He filed a motion with 11 AI-hallucinated citations to nonexistent cases.
  • The court ordered 10 hours of community service and future AI disclosure.
  • California court; state jurisdiction; location not further specified on the page.
  • The article says he admitted using generative AI and the sanction was for hallucinated citations.

Showing 141–150 of 858.

Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.